At 1:04 PM 6/16/95, David Morris wrote:>Hence on the alter of 'current practice', I would vote for no change>in the current draft's intent. I'm personally not very satisfied>with current rendering practice so would rather defer providing more>required complications until we can take the time and reflect on the>verbage. Definition lists are almost tables and I can surely provide>a more satisfying <DL> appearance with the deployed table support>than I can with <DL> support. Hence, I would suggest that the>TABLE document/RFC might include <DL> as a candidate for improvement>as well. Or perhaps we have a clean-up RFC.>>TO sumarize. I recommend for no change.>>Dave Morris

Also, didn't we go thru a discussion of this content model months back?